Tue Mar 19 15:15:34 1996

From majordom  Tue Mar 19 15:15:34 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA23743; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:15:34 +0500
Message-Id: <199603192012.PAA34122@r02n05.cac.psu.edu>
X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:12:29 -0500
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen)
Subject: Re: Different dating systems
Content-Length: 1452
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 19 March, Stephen Carlson wrote:

>Second, although some parts of John seem very early, other parts, esp.
>ch. 21 appear to be written (shortly) after the death of the beloved
>disciple.  Perhaps John was originally published in two versions, a
>twenty chapter and a twenty-one chapter version, but the evidence of P5
>and P75 for this is unclear.  I'd be interested in hearing other's
>opinions on whether P5 and P75 reflect a twenty-chapter version of
>John.
>

Neither P5 nor P75 include John 21, but that tells us nothing, for both are
very fragmentary.  P5 does contain parts of chap. 20:  20:11-17, 19-20, and
22-25.  In P75 the fragmentary "snippets" of text go as far as John 15:7-8.
See Aland & Aland, _Text of the NT_.

The best way to see how far back in the tradition John 21 goes is to check
Patristic citations, and see who first quotes from John 21.  The tool to use
is the _Biblia Patristica_ (now 5 vols.)

There seems to be little doubt but that, on internal grounds, chap. 21 is
some sort of an "Appendix," tacked on after the death of the "beloved
disciple" (cf. 21:20-23).  Similarly, the shift in pronouns in 21:24 (first
person sing. to first person pl.) indicates the same.  This "revisionist"
tendency also intrudes into the gospel even earlier, at 2:18-22.  This
revisionism seems to indicate a later date for the final product, and/or a
revision of an earlier "edition" (if there was one).


--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

Back